Though Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said today that former CIA Director David Petraeus is willing to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, news coverage about Petraeus' fall out has centered more on the sordid details of the affair than on the national security implications of it. And that's not a good thing.

The former CIA director resigned two days after the presidential election, citing an extra marital affair, and prompting speculation about the real motive behind the decision — since, following the election, he was due to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the Benghazi attack.

The tragedy occurred on September 11, 2012, when a heavily armed group broke into the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, killing four Americans — including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The Obama administration had initially linked the attack to a series of spontaneous demonstrations in the Middle East over the anti-Islam YouTube video The Innocence of Muslims, but subsequently acknowledged it was a premeditated act.

Since then, the administration came under fire (mainly from conservative media) about its handling of the situation in the days leading to the November 6 election. And it's these same media the ones that are still insisting on a potential cover up. They have a point, as the issue wasn't widely reported in the days leading to the election and now has been overshadowed by the sordid details on the Petraeus affair (which is admittedly "sexier," as it generates more interest than the tragic events in Libya).